WWII bombers were getting shot down by Nazis left and right. Here’s how they almost lost the war with a logic failure.
Follow:
♪ https://www.tiktok.com/@smartnonsense
🌻 https://www.instagram.com/smart.nonsense/
🐦 https://twitter.com/SmartNonsense
#SmartNonsense #DylanJardon #HenryBelcaster
source
bro who cares abt the plane? BANZAIIII
Famn
My guy used a spitfire for an american, plane, not even a USAF painted one
I figured it, you just couldn't don't know it's obvious especially bombers, cause the summary showed engines we'rent shot at engines and returned, and on the cockpit too
ok so shots in the cockpit and still alive?
I’m pretty sure most of the US navy was in the pacific at this time…..
it did not fool me
It's a true story that anyone who knows anything about WW2 knows, but… it didn't almost lose the war. Get a grip.
Nope didn't fool me cuz I heard it from Tate once.
Same happened with helmets. They were upset that there was an increase in head injuries, thinking it was due to the helmets. They didnt consider fatalities was down. Fatal injuries were now trauma injuries. In the end they probably were mad anyway. Caring for an injured soldier takes more resources than a dead one
Such a disingenuous opening
Thier boggest mistake was placing it in areas with holes without realizing that the smart thing to do is give ammor to the spot with out holes because most of the planes with holes where able to go back but how about the planes with holes in the areas that are not filled with holes
You messed this up by using a different image. The original one is a Lockheed Ventura, twin engine, with the cockpit in a different place to the Spitfire in yours. The dots are supposed to be everywhere except the cockpit and engines, because they didn't make it back.
I wonder why Kamikazes didn't have survivorship bias problems? 🤔
This is confusing as hell. You're talking about US Navy bombers (?) in Europe (?) while showing pictures of British fighters? Come on, man – get it together.
This is a British story, not American.
I would add armour to where the surviving planes didn't get shot because they survived getting hit which implies those areas that were hit were not the weak points.
Navy? It’s the air force
Also Their stupid thinking was to add more .50 cals weighing it down ,making it slower and an easy target
I would put it where the plane wasn't shot because these planes can still fly
a similar thing happened in WW1 (don't know if it is true but is cool): after introducing the steel helmet britons were disappointed because head injury increased, then they realised that those with head injury would have died without the steel helmet.
They actually did no such thing because Abraham Wald explained, in statistical terms, why they shouldn't. Also, that's a Spitfire from the RAF.
Not navy, Army aircorps
You put spitfires wen they are British not American
U gotta love that they use a British spitfire to represent American planes
Why were the US Navy basing their survivability decisions on the Supermarine Spitfire? Sounds like someone made a "classic mistake".
More stories 👉 SmartNonsense.com 🌈
Yes but if you add the metal to the surya in parts wouldn’t the parts produce an unbalancing weight for the aircraft
I fr thought “Everywhere”
No you put the armor where the plane didn't get hit cuz that means if it gets hit there it won't come back if it does not get hit there it's fine so you put the armor where it has not been shot cuz that's clearly a critical part and if that part had been hit that plane would not have came back
i did not understand for 3 or 2 days
I’m not holding it, gonna put it at the places where it shows the black part because the returning from battle
Me being a Warthunder addict. I know myself where a plane can be shot and survive and where it’ll fall in a ball of fire.
Andrew Tate was the one who told this story
How was the U.S Navy fighting in Europe, when they were busy in the Pacific, they only assisted in some operations😂
Spitfire? That’s RAF not US…
WWIIIIIIII
I would just fully cover it with extra layers of metal…so technically i was fooled and not fooled due to my major thinking skills
My guy this story was abt the British not everything is abt Americans and that's a British fighter when ur talking abt American bombers😂
Fake news.. yes, someone used bullet holes to plot where to reinforce armor.. but no.. there was never a dumb person trying to armor the wrong spot.
That's the Spitfire, a British RAF Fighter, USAAF Fighters don't have Cannons, and a Float Control Carburator, Heavy Bombers like the B-17 could take a SHITload of Punishment and still manage to do their missions and head for home, until the B-29 Superfortress is designed, did they do what you thought, no the entire B-29 skin is made of strong Steel which meant most of the damage don't damage the sensitive Parts of the B-29 Superfortress, they can take hundreds of thousands of bullets in ammunition and still manage to do their mission and return home, thankfully the B-29 is used in the Pacific and not Europe, just imagine how scary squadrons of B-29 Superfortress Heavy Bombers would really be, your an ME-262 Pilot ready to shoot down B-17 Bombers and spot B-29 Superfortresses in a big Squadron, when you fly up close, the crew aren't even wearing Oxygen Masks, that would scare the shit outta Luftwaffe Pilots
That’s a British super marine spitfire I am sure not a American plane America has a star in the middle ok
Bomber fleet. Shows fighter. US planes. Shows spitfire. Add metal to the engine. Bangs a hammer everywhere else except the engine.
It was the British not Americans
That was not his revelation. They realized that when a statistical mathematician working for the military pointed it out.
No i wasn't fooled (ive heard this story told about 15 times already)